Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 31

= December 31 =

One state religion and one language nation
I know it may sound challenging bu I want to know: a)Which African nation is the only one whose only official language if French and its only state religion is Islam, no Christian presence? b)Which African nation is the only one whose only official language if English and its only state religion is Islam, no Christian presence? c)Which African nation is the only one whose only official language if French and its only state religion is Christianity, no Muslim presence? d)Which African nation is the only one whose only official language if English and its only state religion is Christianity, no Muslim presence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.36 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no African country whose only official language is French or English that completely lacks a Muslim presence. Marco polo (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to believe that any country in the world has not a single Muslim and/or Christian, so perhaps you should clarify the meaning of "no [religious affiliation] presence". --Sean 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the following three pages, List of official languages by state, Christianity by country, Islam in Africa. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Somalia (which however is neither English nor French-speaking) is virtually 100% Muslim. --Soman (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to movements?
Or playing something in B flat? Back in the classical era they were all like 'Yo, gimme that second movement in B flat', and- it was done. Songs just aren't the same 30 minute epic they were that told a long, sad story. No my hillbilly boyfriend's down at the bar, gettin loaded, goin huntin with the boys country ditties either, now that I think about it.--THE WORLD&#39;S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See Dream Theater. I suggest the images and words album as a nice transition between the lame North American pop verse-chorus style and real music. NByz (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's obvious, but it should be noted that I Kissed A Girl is not the 21st Century equivalent of Eine kleine Nachtmusik. I know your question asks what happened to classical music (and the answer for why it declined in popularity is way out of my league) but I think it should be noted that there's long been a tension between musical styles in Western culture.  Popular music in the 1700s or 1800s...that is, the music listened to and performed by "average" people...was certainly not symphonic works by the likes of Beethoven.  This isn't to say that people of all walks of life can't enjoy the 9th Symphony, nor am I arguing that "classical" music is as popular now as it was then.  Clearly "popular" music is now the rage.  But a plowhand in the 1700s wouldn't be humming Bach in the fields, or at least it's much more likely he'd be humming To Be A Farmer's Boy or some other peasant song of that style.  I'm not well educated on this field, though (I had a professor who was obsessed with working class music in 18th century England), and wish I could find the articles here that would get into it in more detail.  User:Jwrosenzweig posting as 71.112.36.50 (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Folk Music would be a good starting point, as others have pointed out pop music now is not the equivilient of what classical music was back then. Looking at folk-songs, traditional music and early music would probably be worthwhile. Consider that back in the day there were no play-back devices so all music that people heard was performed live - that in itself makes it pretty obvious that for the most part the general population weren't listening to classical music which often requires a large orchestra. Bruce Springsteen (if i've got his name spelling correct) did a great album all about classic American folk songs called We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions - it is very good and includes traditional songs such as Old Dan Tucker, Pay Me My Money Down and Froggie Went a Courtin. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well classical music is still there, being played live and broadcast on specialist music stations. Here in the UK we have Classic FM and BBC Radio 3. Young people still learn about it over here. Now my personal take on this is that classic rock is the natural child of classical music: the 30-minute compositions to which you refer bear comparison to the works of Pink Floyd, Yes, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer. This form of popular music fell into disregard following the punk revolution, but it too still has its followers, and the old performers are still touring and can still pull a crowd. If you consider Yes's "Close to the Edge", for example, which filled one side of an old vinyl LP, you will see it is in 5 separate movements. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This probably isn't what the OP is asking about, but I'll talk about it anyway just in case. If a conductor at a rehearsal wants the musicians to turn to the 2nd movement of a piece, he will say "We'll rehearse the 2nd movement now", or something like that. There's no need to specify the key, because it's written in B flat (or whatever key). However, musicians were often required to transpose a piece into any key nominated by the conductor. For example, Beethoven's 5th Symphony in C minor (3 flats) might be required to be played in C sharp minor (4 sharps). This was to be done at sight, reading from the C minor score, without any special preparation or private rehearsal by the individual players. A well-known anecdote is about the pianist Wilhelm Kempff. For his final conservatorium examination, he was required to have memorised Bach's entire Well-Tempered Clavier, which contains 48 Preludes and Fugues in 2 sets of 24, one in each major and minor key in each set. The examiner would nominate one Prelude and Fugue at random, say the one from Book II in G major, and require Kempff to play it immediately and faultlessly, without the music, in various unrelated keys (e.g. D flat major, or F sharp major) that the examiner would also specify. Then the examiner would choose another Prelude and Fugue, and so on. If you couldn't display that level of musicianship, you didn't get through. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary crew jobs
Wikipedia's article on the Queen Mary lists a crew of about 1100. How many of these people do you think had duties related to the operation of the ship, and how many tended to the passengers? I have to figure that some of the 1100 were for laundry, meal service, and other duties that were not strictly related to making the ship go, and others worked in engineering and such, but I don't know where the split was. To put the question another way, if the ship were to have sailed with no passengers at all, how many crew would it have needed? gnfnrf (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The division isn't quite clear cut, as some crew (including the captain and officers) had duties of both kinds, while other crew (galley staff, medical and wireless officers, etc.) overlapped somewhat. Comparable ships, such as R. M. S. Titanic, are well documented on numbers. Xn4  ( talk ) 10:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. List of crew members on board RMS Titanic appears to have a pretty good breakdown, and tells me that about half of the 900 crew of the Titanic were responsible for "hotel" jobs, and half for shipboard jobs.  That's probably as good as I'm likely to get. gnfnrf (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oil-fired ships, such as QM, had smaller engineering crews as there was no need for coal stokers. So Titanic is not the best comparison.  I'll look further.  Kablammo (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

what is the theme of "sredni vashtar", short story of saki?please explain it in simple English.
what is the theme of "Sredni Vashtar", short story of saki?please explain it in simple English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmadhikari (talk • contribs) 07:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't a long story. Why not read it here? Xn4  ( talk ) 10:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is what it is. Literature is to be interpreted by the reader; there is no right interpretation. Readers who liked this story will also like "Thus I Refute Beelzy" by John Collier. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare question
Can you explain Shakespeare question? Some people say that the dramatist and the actor weren't the same person. Is it real that the dramatist lend his name to Francis Bacon, earl Derby and earl Oxford? Please, try to explain as simple as possible because I'm not from an English speaking country. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.182.61 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Shakespeare authorship question begins to answer this. Xn4  ( talk ) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider how difficult it would be to prove something that happened more than 400 years ago in your own country. The short answer is that some people believe that the man named Will, born in Stratford, was not the actual author.  Bacon, Derby, and Oxford (among others) have each been suggested as the (main) author of what we think of as Shakespeare's plays.  The First Folio, acollection of 36 plays and the only source for about 20 of them, didn't appear until seven years after Will Shakespeare died -- so in one sense we're not sure what was actually written (rather than remembered years later), let alone who did the actual writing.  --- OtherDave (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no serious Shakespeare "question", though our article unfortunately obscures that fact. People are irrational and prejudiced; if you ask the opinions of enough of them, you'll find they'll believe almost anything.  For centuries after Shakespeare's death, no one questioned that Shakespeare the actor had written the plays generally attributed to him. But centuries later a crazy American schoolteacher began finding what she thought were secret messages in the plays - hidden in codes that only existed in her mind - that told her Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays. And she managed to convince enough people that the idea caught on! Later on, a crazy English schoolteacher, upset at the thought that someone from the lower classes could have written the plays, decided they had to have been written by an aristocrat, and chose an Earl of Oxford as his candidate. And he managed to convince enough people that the idea caught on!.  The only mysterious question remaining is why people are so willing to believe crazy theories with no creditable evidence.  No reputable scholar takes these theories seriously, and neither should you. They are on a level with "HIV doesn't cause AIDS", "no one ever landed on the Moon", and "the world will end in 2012". - Nunh-huh 13:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I must take exception to most of that, Nunh-huh. There are many holes in the Will-from-Stratford theory, many of which can be better explained if a different author is posited.  Many, many reputable scholars take some of these alternative theories seriously, myself included (although I restrict my belief to Oxford).  If the original attribution is so sound and watertight, it should speak for itself, without any need to pooh-pooh those with different opinions.  Unfortunately, for many researchers, it's far from watertight.  Delia Bacon may have been the first to publish a book with her theory of an alternative author, but she was far from the first to express serious doubts. And it's easy to put down a writer by the name of Looney, but he had no choice of surname and his theory is no less valid merely because he had a ridiculable name.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, reputable scholars who take this theory seriously can only be found by radically redefining the word "reputable" or "scholar". The original attribution is indeed sound. Looney, by the way, could take comfort in the pronunciation of his name, (more like Loan-y), and I haven't ridiculed it. In any case, exception noted, but I stand by my opinion: the impetus to belief in an alternative "Shakespeare" is generally rooted in class prejudice and idiosyncratic thought rather than actual evidence. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you're labelling people who disagree with you as "non-reputable", and dismissing them out of hand on that basis alone. It's a neat trick, but it's a very poor substitute for reasoned argument. It's a matter of opinion whether the original attribution is sound.  You believe it is; I and many others disagree.  The actual evidence for the Stratford person being the author of the plays is non-existent.  There is not even any evidence that he could write at all - at all.  Apart from a handful of scrawly signatures, all spelled differently, not one single piece of writing in his hand is known to exist.  Not one.  Of course, that doesn't prove he wasn't the writer, but it's not of much use to those who believe he was.--  JackofOz (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that there is a direct correlation between a scholar's repute and whether he or she has any use for these nut-ball theories. Those with tenured endowed academic positions who publish their findings in scholarly articles and peer-reviewed journals recognize it as bunk, while those who labor in basements and post their latest discoveries on the Internet find it both fascinating and convincing. In short, the less you know, the more likely you are to believe. I'm not creating the correlation, I'm just recognizing it exists. - Nunh-huh 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for intruding, but maybe it would help this discussion if Jack could name and/or provide links to some of the "many reputable scholars" who question the authorship of the plays. --Richardrj talkemail 11:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shakespeare authorship question has a quite a good list of further reading and external links, written by people who are not generally considered nut cases. Oxfordian theory, Baconian theory and Marlovian theory all have extensive reading lists. As far as I'm aware, none of these have been produced in basements or breathlessly posted on the Internet.  Rather, they are the products of years of research by highly educated people, they contain copious notes and references, and they have been published by very reputable publishing houses. There are other candidates without separate WP articles. Oxfordian theory also lists some notable doubters of the Stratford theory, not all of them scholars as such.  However, that list should also include Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, Lord Palmerston, John Galsworthy and Enoch Powell.  While each of the alternative theories has its adherents, who traditionally fight amongst each other, what all these people are in agreement about is that, whoever wrote these works, it certainly wasn't Will Shaksper from Stratford, the person we've been told it was.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the further a person is from actual expertise on the subject, the more likely he is to believe in the fringe theories. You'll note rather a paucity of, say, professors of literature, or of English, or indeed academics of any sort - the people who might accurately be termed "reputable scholars" - among the Shakespeare denialists. Rather, we find amateur hobbyists pursuing their enthusiasms outside their fields of training. We do not do the questioner any favors by pretending this is anything but a fringe theory, no matter how fondly a Wikipedian or two embraces it. - Nunh-huh 14:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, fringe theories indeed, but the fringe just keeps on getting larger. Mind you, fringe theories are not necessarily invalid just because those who subscribe to them are in the minority.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. These fringe theories founder because of the lack of evidence supporting them, not merely because of the small numbers of supporters, or the non-academic nature of those supporters. - Nunh-huh 04:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a charge that is not without foundation, Nunh-huh. Many of the alternative theories can't be supported by direct evidence, merely by educated supposition.  However, much of what we "know" about Shakespeare is tradition, equally without any evidence of the kind you would, I imagine, require to support any of the alternative theories.  There are innumerable "biographies" of Shakespeare, most of them containing assertions about his life that simply have no evidence to back them up.  These fabrications (ok, I'll be generous - traditions) are just passed on from generation to generation, and holes are filled in by authors on the basis of "It must have been/probably was/possibly was that way, so I'll write that it was that way, without qualification".  In no other case that I can think of are non-fiction writers allowed so much latitude with the truth and freedom from the norms and rigours of academic research.  The received history of William Shakespeare is so sacrosanct that anyone who dares question any of it is asking for trouble.  Some people embrace trouble of this kind, if it might lead to a revelation of the true record of these events.  Maybe we'll never know for sure one way or another, but that doesn't stop every new generation from questioning the received wisdom that: (a) an uneducated country boy (there is no evidence he ever spent a day at school, or could even write more than his name) could just by pure fluke have a vocabulary of over 17,000 words, more than twice that of John Milton, and could be saturated with classical learning, normally a preserve of the aristocracy; (b) such a boy could display a greater knowledge of physiology than any doctor of the time (there are over 1,400 medical references in the plays), and (c) his knowledge of falconry was outstanding - yet, again, only noblemen were able to indulge in such pursuits.  This is the merest tip of the iceberg of the objections. --  JackofOz (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That bad, speculative books have been written about Shakespeare is beyond question... I find those which begin by lying about knowing his actual birthday particularly inane... but such books are not Shakespeare "scholarship". As you point out, the speculations largely arise from personal incredulity rather than actual evidence. I don't find the argument from I-can't-believe-there-was-a-knowledgeable-peasant any more convincing than any other of these. Making references, in particular, to medical topics does not make one knowledgeable about those topics, and frankly any medical expertise you detect in his plays is being read into them, not out of them. In any case, my concern in answering the question is that we not misrepresent this "controversy" as one which is held by serious academics. I suspect much of the conversation, while amusing to you and me, is going to go unread by the original questioner, especially now that we're on this archived page, so I suppose it's moot. - Nunh-huh 05:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

common law partner
what is a common law partner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atepau (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See Common-law marriage. Algebraist 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec): There is an article on common law marriage (and cohabitation), which explains the legal status in various cultures.  --62.47.146.243 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ficher would be a common law partner. Goldstein would be another. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.239.144 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are "Ficher" and "Goldstein" and who would be their "common-law partners"? Are these names each one-half of some famous common-law couples I have missed along the way? ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP means these are common names of lawyers, partners in law firms. These are Jewish surnames and lazy antisemitism assumes that lawyers are likely to be Jewish. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, those are actually among the top names of law partners. I asked someone who a common law partner would be, and she said Ficher is a common one.  Goldstein is also a common one.  How the fuck is it antisemitism.
 * OK, just lazy then. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was quite funny. By the way for the original poster if you put "common law partner" into the search box at the left of the page on wikipedia you'd go straight to the common-law marriage article. In thr cases you#d get a list of possibly helpful articles, putting the search terms into google or another search engine can also help. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is very disturbing. I am shocked to see that the question remains. It is patently ridiculous. 75Janice (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)75Janice
 * Huh? --Nricardo (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 75Janice fell for my trick with the joke, to the point that she completely misses how the OP makes sense -- she still thinks the OP is asking for a common partner at a law firm ("What is a common law partner") -- which she correctly characterizes as patently ridiculous -- not seeing the fact that the OP meant to write "What is a common-law partner", which is a perfectly sensible question. That's what happened.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.239.144 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is bad manners to make fun of a questioner's typing, however lightheartedly. We try to stay professional and welcoming. Part of the challenge for the RefDesk volunteer is seeing what a questioner means whose first language is not English or whose writing skills are not of the highest quality. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

conservative cartoon on spike tv
what was the conservative cartoon on spike tv? during the 2004 election, the main guy meets Kerry through the weather girl hes dating since the media is liberal or something. --Gary123 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite likely to be This Just In!, but I don't know exactly (I've never even heard of Spike TV, just got this from a google search). Fribbler (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

British Solomon Islands
Hi! I need the flag of the British Solomon Islands between the years 1970-1976. I tried to look for it here, but I didn't find it. Somebody can help me. Thanks. 93.206.59.73 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This web page has an image of the flag that was used from 1966–1976. Marco polo (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I know, but I need this flag like a file or image in the wikipedia, it's for an article I'm working now. My question is where is it or how can one it uploaded? I have not experience with imagens uploading ;) 93.206.59.73 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will confess that I don't know the rules or even the logistics for uploading images. However, this Wikimedia document seems to explain the rules and process.  If you get permission from the owners of the website that I linked earlier, you may be able to upload their file to the Wikimedia Commons.  If you don't get permission from them, you can probably create a replica of the flag they display using basic graphics software.  The image of the flag itself is probably not copyright protected.  However, you can probably confirm this or get other help at the Wikipedia Help Desk.  Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

distribution of birth months in general population?
I'd like a graph like this one but not for a particular group (that link is for OHL and WHL players) but the general population, prefereably in several countries. I'm coming up empty-handed. Is there anything like that online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.239.144 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Somebody has posted a dataset for England and Wales here. You could make a graph of it easily (the graphs on the site only do a top-ten, and of course there are twelve months....) Fribbler (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)